Open Stack

If its not clear by my tone below i am very much speaking in my personal capsity
not in a redhat one just to be explict about that up front.
On Thu, 2023-02-09 at 13:50 +0100, Dmitriy Rabotyagov wrote:
> Sorry, let me not agree with this approach. TripleO is a project under
> OpenStack governance. Any project under the governance *must* follow 4
> opens [1]. At the same time, if the project happens to be maintained
> by a single vendor, it doesn't make it any special from any other
> project that has healthy contribution diversity. So community
> consensus can't be neglected in my opinion.
while i hesitate to disagree with my colleague i strongly agree with this
statement. regardless of the makeup of the contibutor base
by being listed under the grovernace of the openstack foundation and being
recognised as a offical openatck porject Tripleo is not a "RedHat Project"
or thrid party project and is subject to same rules and procedures as
any other offical openstack project.
> 
> While I fully understand that the main contributor of the project is
> quitting it and resuming to maintain only some stable branches that
> are currently in an Extended Maintenance, until they will be EOLed, I
> personally don't think that dropping content/removing later branches
> or releases does follow 4 opens. Even though we might not be aware of
> contributors willing to step in in further maintenance of the project,
> it doesn't mean they won't show up in some time when the word will be
> spread.
i tend to agree i think the stable/zed branch since it has been release should not be retired
it should be left open so that anyone who deployed it can fix bug and maintaien it.
this might require addiing new memeber to the core team or other changes but
if there are people willing to put in the work we shoudl afford them the opertunity.
its been a very long time since there was any kind fo diversity in the triplo comunity but
there have been limisted contibutions form other like 99cloud although after train that sharpely
decreased.
https://www.stackalytics.io/?module=tripleo-group&release=train
there really has not been any significant multi vendor contibution since HP stopped workign on
tripleo in kilo but that does not mean there are not comunity users of this may want
to maintain it instead of move there production cloud to a diffent technology.
or perhaps maintain it so that they can plan to move to a diffent deployment approch in a timely manner.
> 
> As Ghanshyam said, the situation we've found ourselves in will be
> discussed during the next TC meeting and TC will return back with a
> decision on how to proceed with the project deprecation process.
> 
> [1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/new-projects-requirements.html
> 
> > This is the mailing list thread for discussion. The team is sharing how we'll be contributing to OpenStack moving forward as it relates to TripleO. For single vendor projects made up of community members who are employees of that vendor, as opposed to volunteers, then community consensus is not entirely the contributing factor to the decision. That's not to say that the TripleO community is not in consensus with the decision one way or another. It just means that out of the community members I'm aware of, there are not enough volunteers (or any) to continue maintaining TripleO after Wallaby.
> > 
> > For documentation purposes, I'd say that it's a single vendor project where the vendor is no longer resourcing individuals to continue maintenance of TripleO after Wallaby, and there are as of now, no volunteers to do so. As I said, if some volunteers do come forward, then the plan could change according to how those volunteers are willing to contribute.
> > 
> > --
> > -- James Slagle
> > --
>